Check out this film. It looks interesting. The producer, Edward Griffin, is very intelligent, credible and thinks outside the box.

Description:

G. Edward Griffin marshals the evidence that cancer is a deficiency disease - like scurvy or pellagra - aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile. This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle. Why has orthodox medicine waged war against this non-drug approach? The author contends that the answer is to be found, not in science, but in politics - and is based upon the hidden economic and power agenda of those who dominate the medical establishment. With billions of dollars spent each year on research, with other billions taken in on the sale of cancer-related drugs, and with fund-raising at an all-time high, there are now more people making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the solution should be found in a simple vitamin, this gigantic industry could be wiped out over night. The result is that the politics of cancer therapy is more complicated than the science.

What you are about to watch does not carry the approval of organised medicine. The Food and Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society, and the American Medical Association have labelled it "fraud" and "quackery". In fact, the FDA and other agencies of government have used every means at their disposal to prevent this story from being told. They have arrested citizens for holding public meetings to tell others of their convictions on this subject. They have confiscated films and books. They even have prosecuted doctors who apply these theories in the effort to save the lives of their own patients. The purpose of this movie is to show that this great human tragedy can be stopped now entirely on the basis of existing scientific knowledge. The information you are about to watch marshals the evidence that cancer is a nutritional-deficiency disease, like scurvy or pellagra. It is not caused by a bacterium, virus or mysterious toxin, but by the absence of a substance that modern man has removed from his diet. That substance is Vitamin B-17, also known as Amygdalin or Laetrile. If that analysis is correct, then the treatment and prevention of cancer can be made simple. All that needs to be done is to restore that easily obtained and inexpensive food factor to our daily meals. An increasing number of doctors all over the world are now are testing and proving in their own clinics that the vitamin concept of cancer is true.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote: An increasing number of doctors all over the world are now are testing and proving in their own clinics that the vitamin concept of cancer is true.

I'm not going to watch the youtube videos, but it's quite simple: if this works: do a clinical trial and demonstrate it!

Uh dude. If you saw the film, you'd know that there ARE trials that have been done and proven the claim conclusively, at least that's what they claim.

What if they are right?

You don't think the establishment would cover it up, cause they are all about the truth right? lol

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote:Uh dude. If you saw the film, you'd know that there ARE trials that have been done and proven the claim conclusively, at least that's what they claim.

What if they are right?

You don't think the establishment would cover it up, cause they are all about the truth right? lol

How does the establishement cover up a clinical trial? Can they block the whole internet? I have no problem accepting that B-17 is useful in fighting cancer, why the hell would I? It would be great! So where is the study? Surely you don't trust that there's a conclusive study just because they say so!

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote:Uh dude. If you saw the film, you'd know that there ARE trials that have been done and proven the claim conclusively, at least that's what they claim.

What if they are right?

You don't think the establishment would cover it up, cause they are all about the truth right? lol

How does the establishement cover up a clinical trial? Can they block the whole internet? I have no problem accepting that B-17 is useful in fighting cancer, why the hell would I? It would be great! So where is the study? Surely you don't trust that there's a conclusive study just because they say so!

There are studies, but you can't start the approval process for a new med without the pharmaceutical company funding it. Duh.

Do you honestly think that the pharmaceutical companies would have no problem losing billions of dollars cause a cure for cancer is found? Why do you defend them?

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote:Do you honestly think that the pharmaceutical companies would have no problem losing billions of dollars cause a cure for cancer is found? Why do you defend them?

Don't get me wrong, I dispise the pharmaceutical companies for many reasons. However, I'm curious as to how you think they would lose billions of dollars if a cure for cancer was found. Would they not just change their source of profit from cancer symptom drugs to cancer cure drugs?

As the video suggests, pharmaceutical companies generally aren't interested in doing expensive clinical trials where they are unlikely to recoup the expense. This is not controversial, is it? However, as the report then says, universities and governments don't have that same limitation. Have they applied for government grants to do a study?

Scepcop wrote:Do you honestly think that the pharmaceutical companies would have no problem losing billions of dollars cause a cure for cancer is found? Why do you defend them?

Don't get me wrong, I dispise the pharmaceutical companies for many reasons. However, I'm curious as to how you think they would lose billions of dollars if a cure for cancer was found. Would they not just change their source of profit from cancer symptom drugs to cancer cure drugs?

That's a good question. I'm not sure. If someone else here can't answer it, I'll post it on the ATS and David Icke forums and see if anyone can address that one.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote:Do you honestly think that the pharmaceutical companies would have no problem losing billions of dollars cause a cure for cancer is found? Why do you defend them?

Don't get me wrong, I dispise the pharmaceutical companies for many reasons. However, I'm curious as to how you think they would lose billions of dollars if a cure for cancer was found. Would they not just change their source of profit from cancer symptom drugs to cancer cure drugs?

That's a good question. I'm not sure. If someone else here can't answer it, I'll post it on the ATS and David Icke forums and see if anyone can address that one.

Sorry, but based on your original statement, I'm a little confused by your response. Am I the only one? I guess I'll just wait for those amazing thinkers over at ATS and Icke...

I'm not trying to be close minded here but I'm very sceptical of many of these alternative treatments. If this 'vitamin' B-17 really works, especially with all of this information out on the net today about it why don't I hear testimonials about it on mainstream cancer websites? People would be curing their cancer with this threatment 'protocol' and there would be massive riots out on the streets. Everytime I look at these 'alternative' cures it seems these 'testimonials are always confined to these alternative websites. Dam if I had cancer and used B-17 or any other unorthodox treatment method I most definitely wouldn't be wasting my time on posting testimonials of the alternative websites but rather I would be ranting on the mainstream cancer websites themselves. Most people who originally did try alternative methods to beat cancer usually ended up going to see an oncologist before it was too late. If there is evidence of these treatments effectivness lets see it!

Now here comes my other side here. This issue is very important to me because I've lost my dad and one of my best friends because of cancer. Everyone I knew that had cancer did everything the 'orthodox' way and they're all gone now. I still believe the business of treating cancer rather than preventing or curing it generates much more profit. People seem to forget that we have a global economy and all industries including the hospital and pharmaceutical industries are a part of this global economy. They need to make their profits in some form. Let's face it, even if money was to be made off of a cancer 'cure' they're still losing out compared to the profits they're making treating cancer with multiple chemo, radiation and surgical treatments. Jobs would be cut, people would lose their positions, hospitals would empty out, etc, etc, etc. I believe there are good intentioned cancer researchers and oncologists that work with trying to find a cancer cure or to help cancer patients but they still have an employer that controls what they learn about cancer and the resources they are allowed to work with.

There was one alternative protocol which does seem to have promise to it and it is one mentioned in a very very quality book by J Dean called "How to Stop Cancer". Some of these methods were already tested with success. The ketogenic diet has been shown by itself to have the ability to destroy brain tumors. When this ketogenic diet is combined with 2-deoxy glucose (sugar analog) the effectivness of the protocol is even better. Cancer cells get their energy through a process called glycolysis in which these cells use the fermentation of glucose for their energy. Cancer cells can't use the ketones generated from a ketogenic diet because of the need to ferment glucose for energy. There is one problem here because while the normal cells (unlike cancer cells) can use ketones for energy their default energy source is still through utilising glucose for energy. When the blood sugar levels drop it can still use other means to generate glucose through protein and other means so very likely the ketogenic diet by itself will not work. This I guess is the reason the other part of this protocol calls for using antidiabetic medication such as Glucovance. Glucovance regulates blood glucose levels while preventing the pancreas from generating more glucose. The bodies healthy cells can survive perfectly on ketones unlike cancer cells. Maybe this is why Eskimos and some Indians never got cancer before being introduced to the western diet made up of junkfood and wholegrains. According to this protocol it is important to keep an eye on your blood glucose levels to make sure they stay between 40 to 60 mg/dl. If the blood glucose drops too low that can be very dangerous obviously but if there is a reading above 60 the cancer is being well fed. Ketone strips should be used to monitor the body's ketone levels as well. From what I've read the cancer will struggle with finding glucose to feed itself because of the combined ketogenic diet and antidiabetic medication. The cancer will actually at this point start to take in the phony glucose (2-deoxy glucose) out of desperation and this substance causes the cancer cells to self destruct. The cancer cells are smart and will not normally take this sugar analog unless it is desperate for glucose. The 2 deoxy glucose is very expensive especially if you don't have a prescription for it and have to purchase it on the internet. It is something like $800 per .25 mg. You will need at least .5 mg for this protocol so it is very important the instructions in the book are followed to a tee as to when is the best time to start taking it.

I played around with part of this protocol because I heard it is an effective way to lose weight. I tested my blood sugar when it was at between 50 and 60 mg/dl and I was perfectly able to function properly. In fact I felt better and yes I did lose weight so this does work for that. I didn't know about this protocol when my dad was alive but seeing how the chemo and surgery wrecked him I would personally try the above protocol if I found out if I had cancer. I've read some very positive testimonials about this treatment from cancer patients on mainstream cancer websites but the biggest problem they claimed they ran into was access to the 2 deoxy d glucose because of the cost. I've personally never knew anybody that tried this protocol but I've read about the success that doctors had using parts of this protocol using the ketogenic diet combined with the 2 deoxy glucose.

Scepcop wrote:Do you honestly think that the pharmaceutical companies would have no problem losing billions of dollars cause a cure for cancer is found? Why do you defend them?

Don't get me wrong, I dispise the pharmaceutical companies for many reasons. However, I'm curious as to how you think they would lose billions of dollars if a cure for cancer was found. Would they not just change their source of profit from cancer symptom drugs to cancer cure drugs?

That's a good question. I'm not sure. If someone else here can't answer it, I'll post it on the ATS and David Icke forums and see if anyone can address that one.

Sooooooo Scepcop, did those masterfull thinkers over at Icke or ATS ever give you an answer or did they want to wave off a sensible question in favor of it remaining some Big Pharma conspiracy?